Master Index of Archived Threads


New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

d'Kong76 Jan 04 2016 06:40 PM

Let's discuss this and come up with a forum standard going forward. My feeling is the best way to do it is: a) Make a comment or fifteen on what you're sharing. b) Copy and paste a small portion of the beginning of the piece. No more than a paragraph or two. c) Post a link asking the reader to 'click here to read more' or something of the sort.

Vic Sage Jan 04 2016 06:57 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Totally agree -- the reposting of other's work en toto is not cool.

Frayed Knot Jan 04 2016 07:17 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Vic Sage wrote: Totally agree -- the reposting of other's work en toto is not cool. It's also boring. The idea here is not just to plaster the board with the writings of others but to post your ideas on a topic backed-up, if you choose, by the facts or opinions of outsiders.

Ceetar Jan 04 2016 07:24 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Frayed Knot wrote: Vic Sage wrote: Totally agree -- the reposting of other's work en toto is not cool. It's also boring. The idea here is not just to plaster the board with the writings of others but to post your ideas on a topic backed-up, if you choose, by the facts or opinions of outsiders. boring is different. Yes it's boring, but you can post a whole article and then have discussion on it, just lead that discussion, especially if it's a new thread. If you want to talk about the whole article, about the whole topic, then post the whole thing. Don't give me homework. Other than that, I have no problem with the way we do things now.

d'Kong76 Jan 04 2016 07:26 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Ceetar wrote: Other than that, I have no problem with the way we do things now. Alert the media, Ceetar takes the contrary side on an issue.

Ceetar Jan 04 2016 07:33 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Other than that, I have no problem with the way we do things now. Alert the media, Ceetar takes the contrary side on an issue. Feel free to repost my thoughts in their entirety. I fall heavily on the free information side of things and would much rather, as a writer, have millions of people reading my work in "non-authorized" places than try to police and control it all. This is very different than reposting it in it's entirety on another blog or without credit in a way that obfuscates who wrote it. But that's not what we're doing here. We're posting a topic of baseball minutia for discussion. Adam Rubin gets far more credit and reputation for a discussion of his article than from 5 extra clicks on ESPN's website. And contrary in the sense that there are usually multiple sides to any issues, yes, but it's hardly contrary in the sense that it's an unpopular opinion.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 04 2016 07:45 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

"What I'd have preferred had I written the article" isn't exactly an airtight defense.

Frayed Knot Jan 04 2016 07:46 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Forcing someone to 'Click Here' for the entirety of the article being sampled is hardly "homework", and it's certainly less homework than having to read an entire article first and then trying to figure out what that poster who threw it up there found interesting/controversial/newsworthy/blasphemous or whatever about it in the first place. Instead, how 'bout reprinting what you think is the salient part of a piece, ex: Here's what Peter Gammons said about the Mets reluctance to sign Cespedes -- sentence - sentence - sentence [click here for full article] and here's why I think this move has Jeffy's fingerprints all over it ... That's a helluva lot better for a lead in to a discussion than is boring old (and illegal old) cut 'n paste jobs of someone else's work.

Ceetar Jan 04 2016 07:53 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

yes, post the relevant pieces you want to discuss. but if you want to discuss the entire thing, post the entire thing. This is a discussion forum, it's not a content producer. That's a big difference (and in the legal/fair use way too) and it's not like we posting the stuff un-credited. When we discuss a Joel Sherman article he gets credit for everything he said in there. we're not passing it off as original thought. we're not profiting from it. It's very much a branding thing, in that this still advances the Sherman brand. These discussions, even outside whatever platform Joel writes for, have currency. Perhaps ultimately MORE currency than a couple extra clicks on a corporate website that maybe down the line show up favorably in a "click per author" spreadsheet that his boss sees during performance review.

d'Kong76 Jan 04 2016 07:54 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

d'Kong76 wrote: My feeling is the best way to do it is: a) Make a comment or fifteen on what you're sharing. b) Copy and paste a small portion [crossout]of the beginning[/crossout] of the piece. No more than a paragraph or two . c) Post a link asking the reader to 'click here to read more' or something of the sort.

sharpie Jan 04 2016 08:25 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

I completely agree with the new policy. Clicking on the "corporate website" of say the Daily News is something that helps keeps operations like the Daily News in business as advertising rates are partially based on clicks. If you want to keep those guys in business then give them a hand and don't steal their stuff.

dgwphotography Jan 04 2016 08:37 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

I completely agree with this, and I'll just add here what I posted in the other thread: Anyone who creates content cares about their copyright, and it is up to us to respect that copyright. ceetar wrote: I'm not going to give those guys extra clicks anyway. That's not for you to decide. Whether you agree or don't agree with what they stand for doesn't change the fact that they, or the entity the work for, owns the copyright to their work. As such, they are entitled to monetize their content as they see fit. If you don't want to click on their links that's your prerogative, but out and out stealing their content is not the way to go about it.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 08:53 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

The new policy makes a lot of sense. I'll work within those guidelines. Just want to point out here that batmags and ceetar seem to fall on the same side of this debate. That's pretty notable.

themetfairy Jan 04 2016 08:58 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

d'Kong76 wrote: Let's discuss this and come up with a forum standard going forward. My feeling is the best way to do it is: a) Make a comment or fifteen on what you're sharing. b) Copy and paste a small portion of the beginning of the piece. No more than a paragraph or two. c) Post a link asking the reader to 'click here to read more' or something of the sort. I'm on board with this. It's a solid rule of thumb Kase.

Ceetar Jan 04 2016 09:09 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation. What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation. My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway. I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report. I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work. It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative. I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed.

RealityChuck Jan 04 2016 09:22 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Ceetar wrote: it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation. Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, you can't republish their work. Printing it out is not republishing it. What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation. TV has a special dispensation; you are allowed to make a home recording for home use (but not for public performance). That doesn't apply to written text. My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway. There's not clearcut rule, but fair use only allows you to use portions of a work, not its entirety. I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report. Doesn't matter. It's protected by copyright. I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work. Lots of rationalization here, but ultimately, the law is the creator holds the copyright and is the one who decides how the work can be reused. Not you. It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative. I suggest you actually look up fair use: § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Note #3. And #4 also comes into play, since the website is selling ads, and posting the article means fewer people see them -- which hurts them financially. I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed. As am I, but the difference is that I look at what the law actually says, instead of making pronouncements about how I want it to be. I think this is a great change, not only due to the law, but due to the fact that it's silly to copy an entire article to comment on it. If someone is too lazy to click on a link, that's too bad.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 04 2016 09:30 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

RealityChuck wrote: it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation. Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, you can't republish their work. Printing it out is not republishing it. What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation. TV has a special dispensation; you are allowed to make a home recording for home use (but not for public performance). That doesn't apply to written text. My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway. There's not clearcut rule, but fair use only allows you to use portions of a work, not its entirety. I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report. Doesn't matter. It's protected by copyright. I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work. Lots of rationalization here, but ultimately, the law is the creator holds the copyright and is the one who decides how the work can be reused. Not you. It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative. I suggest you actually look up fair use: § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Note #3. And #4 also comes into play, since the website is selling ads, and posting the article means fewer people see them -- which hurts them financially. I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed. As am I, but the difference is that I look at what the law actually says, instead of making pronouncements about how I want it to be. I think this is a great change, not only due to the law, but due to the fact that it's silly to copy an entire article to comment on it. If someone is too lazy to click on a link, that's too bad. It's also silly (and lazy) to do what I just did. I used the quote feature on an entire lengthy post when it's the post previous to mine and I'm only commenting on a small part of it.

Ceetar Jan 04 2016 09:35 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

I did, in fact, look up fair use. And like most laws, there's a lot of conflict out there about how it's used, or should be used, or has been used. etc. I found more than 2 places that specifically states full-excerpts are okay in certain instances. I'd argue that this is one. Technically wouldn't Rubin holds the copyright but the ad revenue goes to ESPN? Also I might attempt to argue that frequent discussion of Adam Rubin's work leads to more interest in his work as a whole, and more likely we'd visit the site to read other things he's written or will write. I think it'd be hard to argue we're costing the cite money. I'd ask to see the pageviews on articles we re-posted and ones we didn't and see no demonstrable difference. So the numbers don't support a loss of revenue there. So the only one of the four fair use limitations that might be violated is 3, but what I'm reading seems to suggest that's only used as a modifier of the other ones and doesn't really stand on it's own.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 09:40 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

One way to settle this could be to just email Rubin and ask him right? He's pretty responsive to emails. Man. If only we knew someone who writes articles on the internet for a living.

Ceetar Jan 04 2016 09:48 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Centerfield wrote: One way to settle this could be to just email Rubin and ask him right? He's pretty responsive to emails. Man. If only we knew someone who writes articles on the internet for a living. Isn't that like asking Ruben Tejada about wRC+?

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 04 2016 11:35 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

At my previous place of employment, when we switched to a digital-first format, we were assigned monthly page view quotas and our bonuses were tied to meeting our goals. And for the site overall, advertising rates were based on the site's total page views, just like it used to be based on circulation. So as an author, I'd get upset when people cut-and-pasted my stories into blogs and forums and things. It was affecting my paycheck. I needed the clicks, even if it was just five or 10 or 30 people, it got me that much closer to the monthly quota. And the legal folks were quick to pounce when, say, a local television station would do that to one of our stories, since they were hurting our bottom line in addition to taking our work. Again, will someone from ESPN come after the 'Pool? Probably not. But I totally get why it's bad to cut and paste entire articles.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 04 2016 11:45 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 05 2016 12:26 AM

Centerfield wrote: Just want to point out here that batmags and ceetar seem to fall on the same side of this debate. Not really. I've got a pretty good idea of what "fair use" means and I didn't just learn it today. I just don't think that the Daily News, et. al. give a flying shit about what goes on here re using their stuff. But what's next now? Do youse have a problem with images too? What about posts that include images of baseball cards? Several baseball cards? And what about custom or DIY baseball cards? Because we don't have the rights to the images on those DIYS or the rights to the baseball card designs copped from Topps and Fleer and Bowman, either. And what about baseball players in general? And Mets? Did Fred Wilpon give this forum permission to reproduce the Mets logo or wordmarks? Maybe youse are draining money from Wilpon that could be used to re-sign Yoenis. And that picture of Shea at the banner or top of this forum. It's a post card. Did the forum get permission to use that? And what about photoshopping Jeff Wilpon's mug into the shot where Jack Ruby gives it to Lee Harvey Oswald? Actually, that one might be fair use. But did youse get permission from the rights holder just to be safe in case a court might decide that it isn't fair use? Or did youse just wing it, figuring that you can always delete the post should you get a warning letter? I guess that Babe Ruth images are permissible. At least the ones where he's in a Red Sox uniform. Charlie Chaplin images from his one reeler era are allowed, too, because the copyright laws don't go that far back in time.

Centerfield Jan 05 2016 12:20 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: So as an author, I'd get upset when people cut-and-pasted my stories into blogs and forums and things. It was affecting my paycheck. I needed the clicks, even if it was just five or 10 or 30 people, it got me that much closer to the monthly quota. End of discussion no? People need to make a living.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 05 2016 12:44 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I've got a pretty good idea of what "fair use" means and I didn't just learn it today. LOL.

d'Kong76 Jan 05 2016 12:46 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And that picture of Shea at the banner or top of this forum. It's a post card. Did the forum get permission to use that? It's from a Manny Hanny ad in an old yearbook. In the interest of due diligence I tried on several occasions to contact Manufactures Hanover to gain permission but for some reason all attempts fell on a deaf ear. So yeah, we winged it.

d'Kong76 Jan 05 2016 12:50 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 05 2016 01:06 AM

I thought this idea was a good one but it's just gonna turn into something more. Again. Do whatever 'youse' feel is best. Thank you for your time.

dgwphotography Jan 05 2016 12:50 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And that picture of Shea at the banner or top of this forum. It's a post card. Did the forum get permission to use that? It's from a Manny Hanny ad in an old yearbook. In the interest of due diligence I tried on several occasions to contact Manufactures Hanover to gain permission but for some reason all attempts fell on a deaf ear. So yeah, we winged it. If you want any shots of Shea to put up there, let me know.

dgwphotography Jan 05 2016 12:51 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

d'Kong76 wrote: I thought this idea was a good one but it's just gonna turn into something more. Again, Do whatever 'youse' feel is best. Thank you for your time. It is a good idea, and a rule that I think should be adhered to.

d'Kong76 Jan 05 2016 12:57 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Thanks, that image is just traditional at this point. I think until the Mets do something or spring training gets closer everything here is gonna be a federal case.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 05 2016 01:15 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Framing this policy as a "legal issue" only served to trip up Ceetar, and anyone could have predicted it'd raise the suspicions of BatMags who in my opinion, likely sees this as the Anti BatMags Act of 2016. We really shouldn't post whole articles here primarily because they often interfere with or supercede conversation, and also because it might be against the law and/or screw over writers whose $$ depend on the clickzz. Nobody asked but the thing that bothers me most is when we link to and/or cut-n-paste aggregated or secondhand content: For example, the Post gets the scoop but Rubin gets the clicks for a hasty rewrite with the word Report: in the headline, or vice versa. Megdals not exactly out there burning the shoe leather himself - he's a hustler alright, but nearly all the facts, quotes and figures he assembles were initially gathered by others in a different context.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 05 2016 01:31 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ...and anyone could have predicted it'd raise the suspicions of BatMags who in my opinion, likely sees this as the Anti BatMags Act of 2016. As if there could be any doubt. Boy, you're really on to me. Oh, by the way, do I have permission to use part of your post in my post? Because if not, and it turns out that it isn't fair use, I'll delete your quote from this post. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Megdals not exactly out there burning the shoe leather himself - he's a hustler alright, but nearly all the facts, quotes and figures he assembles were initially gathered by others in a different context. I dunno. I truly believe that Megdal's developed his own confidential sources within the Mets world, probably during the period when the Mets were shopping shares of the team and were thus, exposing their financials to lotsa new eyeballs. And also, I'm guessing that there must be a heckuva lotta disgruntled employees in that organization --- it's usually like that when an org is faced with difficult finances -- and that Megdal's pieces resonate with them to the point that maybe, at least one of 'em has reached out to Megdal deep throat style. [fimg=333]http://41.media.tumblr.com/025454ac565cae4429b3c1aac7e60401/tumblr_nbppxm8juJ1qkdy8to1_1280.jpg[/fimg]

Nymr83 Jan 05 2016 01:35 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

We really shouldn't post whole articles here primarily because they often interfere with or supercede conversation... this was my major point in bringing it up, though the copyright fair/use concerns are there too.

Frayed Knot Jan 05 2016 01:42 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

I don't even look at this as 'new' policy. Not that it was ever chiseled on a stone tablet into the forum bylaws or anything but not reprinting outside material in whole was generally considered to be the way to do things around here and I think we've just gotten lazy over the years of sticking to that habit and/or reminding others to do the same. Also, like I said earlier, I think it's boring and lazy to boot and I tend not to read those kind of posts particularly when the originator doesn't at least make an attempt at stating his purpose.

Rockin' Doc Jan 05 2016 03:21 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

I believe the new Policy proposed by Kong seems rerasonable. It shouldn't be difficult for anyone to comply with with a minimal amount of effort. The original authors deserve to be creidted for their original work. It is not a major problem to click through to the original article if you wish to read more than the excerpt included in a post.

MFS62 Jan 05 2016 04:29 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

I rarely copy and post an article in its entirety. (Not never, but rarely). Since I usually just post the link, with my own comments, this seems ok to me. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 05 2016 04:39 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Frayed Knot wrote: Also, like I said earlier, I think it's boring and lazy to boot and I tend not to read those kind of posts particularly when the originator doesn't at least make an attempt at stating his purpose. Right? If I'm looking to start a conversation about an article/story/TV show IRL, I might mention pertinent parts and a source, but I'd certainly offer some reason why it was novel or interesting, or why I found it so. It's essential to conversation, innit? Between that and the waft of fair use/IP matters, how is this even an issue (much less a platform where you'd stand on principle)?

Centerfield Jan 05 2016 05:04 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Especially in light of the fact that doing so might cost the author money. Look, the admins can decide the extent to which they want to police this, but for me, if I see an article posted, I'll probably just give it a few clicks for good measure. I waste so much time on the internet anyway. Might as well help some Met-writers make a few bucks.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 05 2016 05:27 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: how is this even an issue (much less a platform where you'd stand on principle)? It's not an issue with me, though it would appear to be. I've got no problem respecting someone else's copyright. But I'll tell you this though, even though I can't prove what I'm about to write, but I'll write it anyways 'cause it's what I truly believe. I could easily name more than a dozen posters on this forum, that if it was them posting articles in whole, this conversation would've never ever ever, (did I say ever?) EVER have happened. You can deny it and claim that it's all about fair use and have the fair use angels on your side and fair use is fair I suppose, even it protects stuff that's about 100 years old, but that's what I'm believing.

d'Kong76 Jan 05 2016 03:04 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

With my hand on a stack of Mets yearbooks this thread was not started with any particular poster in mind. I see the coincidence, and I apologize if anyone feels I'm singling anyone out. That's simply not the case. Really, I was a lazy poster of links and con- tent in the past and posting stuff without adding my own thought to things and I intend to not do that in 2016. Hopefully, the rest of us will follow suit.

Centerfield Jan 05 2016 04:00 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

For what it's worth, KC is firmly in the "Wilpons Suck!" camp.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2016 10:04 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: At my previous place of employment, when we switched to a digital-first format, we were assigned monthly page view quotas and our bonuses were tied to meeting our goals. And for the site overall, advertising rates were based on the site's total page views, just like it used to be based on circulation. So as an author, I'd get upset when people cut-and-pasted my stories into blogs and forums and things. It was affecting my paycheck. I needed the clicks, even if it was just five or 10 or 30 people, it got me that much closer to the monthly quota. And the legal folks were quick to pounce when, say, a local television station would do that to one of our stories, since they were hurting our bottom line in addition to taking our work. Again, will someone from ESPN come after the 'Pool? Probably not. But I totally get why it's bad to cut and paste entire articles. One could make the same case for not posting youtube song videos. First of all, they're copyrighted. And one could easily argue that posting them cuts into the record sales of the songs in question.

Nymr83 Jan 06 2016 10:43 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

youtube song videos do in fact get taken down regularly for copyright reasons, there seems to be a trend now to post the official music videos supported by ads though. kinda like how a newspaper article on the internet has ads paying for it and nobody sees those ads when you copy the entire article.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 06 2016 11:01 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

YouTube actually pays out performance and mechanical royalties to songwriters, so a click here is the same as a click there. 'Click' being the key activity. I can remember posting an entire article before in the interest of it being around forever in case the url ever changed or disappeared. I'll make sure I knock that shit off, this practice is a good one.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2016 11:05 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Nymr83 wrote: youtube song videos do in fact get taken down regularly for copyright reasons, Because they're copyrighted. Just because a song video is on youtube, doesn't mean that there's no copyright violation going on. I'm just sayin'. It doesn't bother me that youtube vids get posted here. But this new policy here isn't being applied evenly. Look, the internet has changed life so profoundly, and in ways that no one could have anticipated, that as far as these blog and forum postings go, the copyright holders have essentially thrown in the towel, conceding that it's futile and cost-inefficient to try and enforce their copyrights. So they don't. Or they pick and choose, singling out egregious violators. Recognizing also, that blog and forum use of their works is probably harmless and might even benefit them in other ways. This is much ado about nothing. And yeah, I'm not saying that I was singled out, or that someone premeditated this whole clusterfuck just to stick it to me. But if it was someone else posting long articles, and the articles weren't occasionally unpopular or critical ones, this thought never leaves the idea stage. And never gets legs. Youse woulda thought of it, and then thought: "Well I like that poster, I don't wanna mess with what he does, so I'll just keep the thought to myself. Instead, you get a thread that morphs into I'm putting a gun to your heads to force youse to read lengthy pieces that you have no interest in reading.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2016 11:08 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

A Boy Named Seo wrote: YouTube actually pays out performance and mechanical royalties to songwriters, so a click here is the same as a click there. 'Click' being the key activity. I can remember posting an entire article before in the interest of it being around forever in case the url ever changed or disappeared. I'll make sure I knock that shit off, this practice is a good one. I don't see how youtube gets a click when the video is posted here. I don't see how the rights holders are compensated when someone takes a youtube vid and converts the audio to mp3 for downloading onto his or her computer.

d'Kong76 Jan 06 2016 11:08 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

batmagadanleadoff wrote: But this new policy here isn't being applied evenly. You've made your point and succeeded in busting my balls. Again. There's no policy, do whatever the fuck you want you petulant pain in the fucking tuchus.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2016 11:15 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2016 11:28 PM

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: But this new policy here isn't being applied evenly. You've made your point and succeeded in busting my balls. Again. There's no policy, do whatever the fuck you want you petulant pain in the fucking tuchus. I don't know why you're taking this exchange so personally. Or why you think I'm busting your balls. I'm not. I'm not even aware that you have a major part in this. You're not even on my radar in this discussion. And when you wrote that you swore that you weren't thinking to stick it to me, I truly believed you. And I still do. All I said was that if it was another poster, it doesn't get mentioned. There's a difference. And why do you say "petulant pain in the fucking tuchus" instead of "petulant asshole"? . That's what DWG once called me during one of our old fights. He stepped in to take your side on that one. I wonder where DWG was all those years when you couldn't go half a week without tormenting me? How come he never called you a petulant asshole? See what I mean?

Nymr83 Jan 06 2016 11:26 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

batmagadanleadoff wrote: youtube song videos do in fact get taken down regularly for copyright reasons, Because they're copyrighted. Just because a song video is on youtube, doesn't mean that there's no copyright violation going on. I'm just sayin'. It doesn't bother me that youtube vids get posted here. But this new policy here isn't being applied evenly. Look, the internet has changed life so profoundly, and in ways that no one could have anticipated, that as far as these blog and forum postings go, the copyright holders have essentially thrown in the towel, conceding that it's futile and cost-inefficient to try and enforce their copyrights. So they don't. Or they pick and choose, singling out egregious violators. Recognizing also, that blog and forum use of their works is probably harmless and might even benefit them in other ways. This is much ado about nothing. And yeah, I'm not saying that I was singled out, or that someone premeditated this whole clusterfuck just to stick it to me. But if it was someone else posting long articles, and the articles weren't occasionally unpopular or critical ones, this thought never leaves the idea stage. And never gets legs. Youse woulda thought of it, and then thought: "Well I like that poster, I don't wanna mess with what he does, so I'll just keep the thought to myself. Instead, you get a thread that morphs into I'm putting a gun to your heads to force youse to read lengthy pieces that you have no interest in reading. i mistook your initial post as referring to music being posted to youtube, not music on youtube being posted to the forums.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 06 2016 11:28 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

batmagadanleadoff wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: YouTube actually pays out performance and mechanical royalties to songwriters, so a click here is the same as a click there. 'Click' being the key activity. I can remember posting an entire article before in the interest of it being around forever in case the url ever changed or disappeared. I'll make sure I knock that shit off, this practice is a good one. I don't see how youtube gets a click when the video is posted here. I don't see how the rights holders are compensated when someone takes a youtube vid and converts the audio to mp3 for downloading onto his or her computer. When we embed a video here, all the links and metadata from Youtube are unchanged. They still know what's being played and can compensate if an arrangement's in place. If someone takes a YT vid and rips it to an MP3, then I imagine that would count as one click when the theft begins and after that, it's just a stolen mp3. Obv, not every piece of copyrighted intellectual property is legit on Youtube, but they have struck deals to compensate artists as a streaming service, similar to Apple Music, Spotify, whatever.

d'Kong76 Jan 06 2016 11:29 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why do you think I'm busting your balls? I'm not. I'm not even aware that you have a major part in this. Good. I'm having enough admin headaches right now. Major part? I started this thread. White outing half the butterball picture isn't ball busting? C'mon. Please, let's just be friends after all these years....

batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2016 11:43 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

d'Kong76 wrote: Why do you think I'm busting your balls? I'm not. I'm not even aware that you have a major part in this. White outing half the butterball picture isn't ball busting? C'mon. No. It's not ball busting. Anybody else writes those new Butterball posts gets three high fives, two lols and a bullet of cool. Me, I'm a petulant asshole. d'Kong76 wrote: C'mon. Please, let's just be friends after all these years.... I can definitely get on board with this one. It'd be a pleasure.

d'Kong76 Jan 07 2016 12:03 AM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Thanks! So, how 'bout those Wilpon's....

cooby classic Jan 07 2016 04:23 PM Re: New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Benjamin Grimm wrote: it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation. Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, you can't republish their work. Printing it out is not republishing it. What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation. TV has a special dispensation; you are allowed to make a home recording for home use (but not for public performance). That doesn't apply to written text. My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway. There's not clearcut rule, but fair use only allows you to use portions of a work, not its entirety. I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report. Doesn't matter. It's protected by copyright. I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work. Lots of rationalization here, but ultimately, the law is the creator holds the copyright and is the one who decides how the work can be reused. Not you. It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative. I suggest you actually look up fair use: § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Note #3. And #4 also comes into play, since the website is selling ads, and posting the article means fewer people see them -- which hurts them financially. I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed. As am I, but the difference is that I look at what the law actually says, instead of making pronouncements about how I want it to be. I think this is a great change, not only due to the law, but due to the fact that it's silly to copy an entire article to comment on it. If someone is too lazy to click on a link, that's too bad. It's also silly (and lazy) to do what I just did. I used the quote feature on an entire lengthy post when it's the post previous to mine and I'm only commenting on a small part of it. I was kinda thinking the same thing. Good point